Yes I initially thought that, but when i tested it the range seemed fine, it cut off very close to me.
Good eyes.
The FAA rule is vague with: "Within line of sight", in that it doesn't specifically prohibit the use of telescopic lenses to enhance "line of sight"). FPV isn't "line of sight", as you're not actually looking at the drone itself with FPV, but viewing from an onboard pilot's perspective. "Within line of sight" implies viewing the drone itself (Work with an around enough lawyers long enough, and you start to think like them....). Since telescopic lense viewing inhances "line of sight", you maintain compliance.
But how far did you walk from it before losing control (Such as throttling up to lift a few inches off the ground), compared to when it happened while fully airborne? It's harder to judge distances in the air, with nothing else nearby to use as a reference point for distance. If the transmitter is faulty while it's in the air, being on the ground won't produce a better result, as it will still be defective. Repeat the walking test, and measure the distance. Try somewhere like a high school football field, where the distance is already measured and marked off. You already know what the manufacturer claims the maximum control distance is. If it is (for example) 150 meters/492.12 feet and you find that you lose control after only a distance of 100 meters/328.08 feet in that open field, then you can narrow the fault down to either the transmitter or the reciever. If on the other hand, you walk the full distance claimed by the manufacturer and still have a good response from the receiver, and even so after walking still farther away, then, what's happenening is that you'rer most likely flying beyond the recommeded range, due to losing accurate measure of distance. Most likely because with nothing nearby in the air that you can compare for distance, you're off on your estimate of the actual distance that you are attempting to control it at. IE: It's farther out than you think it is. What I'm suggesting is to eliminate human error as a factor, before spending money to replace components that may not be at fault.
"Close" is a relative term. And since he didn't mention a specific distance, there is no way to know how close to him was "close". Without knowing at least an approximate distance, we have to eliminate human error first, before going to the time and expense of replacing costly electronic parts that may or may not be defective. But presuming that he fully charged the battery before flight, we still need to eliminate the possibility that he simply flew it beyond the effective control range, and it simply dropped after the battery could no longer power the motors before he could have/would have moved closer himself, to regain control.
about 6 meters
Quit trying to confuse him, it's not a range problem
By the fact that he's stated more than once that it's happening 6 metres away
